Quote:Original post by Kaze
in short id rater play a typical console rpg with a good story and good battle system than a rpg that feel like a 500 half finished mini-games rolled into one package,

i don't want to choose between playing a boring job, pointless button mashing combat system, economic simulator that add very little to the gameplay, rat killing quests, unbalanced and frustrating item creation, repeatetive dialog dating sim, following a unoriginal storyline and so forth

Come to think of it, I would like to see an RPG that's just an RPG.
Not a lame FPS with swords and magic tossed in with a stats screen.

The FF series and Chrono Trigger got it right.

The only change really needed is removing the caveman combat style of play.
Give me a battleground to move around in like Star Ocean.
Limited memory was one of reasons for that stand in a group thing, but it's not needed nowadays.

DBZ RPG: Legend of the Super Saiyan for the Super Famicom had an awesome cinema style of play... even with limits, the games battles felt like a show episode.

Quote:From Gamasutra feature "Why Action Games Suck (And What To Do About It)"
For the last few years - OK, maybe about the last fifteen years - I've been noticing a related phenomenon in gaming that really annoys me. Call it "creeping actionism." Creeping actionism is the tendency of game developers to add action elements to games in which they aren't needed or wanted, and it has similarly pernicious consequences. More and more action elements are turning up in genres that never used to have them - like role-playing games, for example.

How would you like it if, in the middle of a frenetic shooter game that you're really good at, you had to stop and play chess against a computer opponent that was much better than you were? And what if you couldn't get back to your shooting until you had beaten it? That's how it feels when I'm in the middle of a role-playing game, duly playing my role, and I'm suddenly asked to become a twitch gamer. I'm not good at twitch games. There's a reason I don't buy them - why spend my money on something I'm not going to enjoy? So when an action element creeps into a game, or an entire genre, that I like, I feel cheated.

I personally prefer RPGs with arcade-style (action) combat, but it's nice to have games clearly say what kind of combat they have so everyone can find one they like.

After reading through this thread, I think that several people are misunderstanding what the "role" means in RPG. There is no requirement that states a RPG must allow the player to define their own role. It is perfectly acceptable for an RPG to define a role and ask the player to play that role. Now whether or not you enjoy being put into a game-defined role is up to you, but I don't think people should belittle games that don't allow the player to choose whether to be good or evil, etc. Personally speaking, I actually prefer that the game define the role for me, because I find that usually allows for a better story and character development. Although I do like for my actions in the game to be able to influence the game world. [smile]

(In this post I will use the dreaded term "RPG" as it pertains to video games. Not to be confused with role playing as defined in any other medium.)

--------

What do I want? I want to go on an adventure. Anything that gets in the way of the adventure (buying equipment, micromanaging stats, playing minigames, watching cutscenes) are cutting into the fun factor. None of those things I listed above are actually necessary, despite what the core gamers will tell you.

Buying Equipment
The Problem: This is a method of trading "points" (usually gold) for stats (attack, defense). Most RPGs already have another system just like this: experience points. So what we have are two different skins on the same concept... why? So the stat junkies can get their rocks off? The problem amplifies when there are multiple vendors selling different equipment, so now you have to run around memorizing what's in every store and then picking out the best stuff... it's tedious.

The Fix: The Paper Mario series (pre-Wii) rethought how equipment in RPGs should work, by making a system designed around strategy instead of pure numbers. It's not just a new skin on increasing your numbers, it's an entirely new system where you have a pool of badge points and each piece of equipment takes a certain number from the pool. The more powerful stuff takes more badge points. Even at the end of the game, badges found at the beginning are useful because you can afford to equip more of them.

Another good fix would be to make each weapon truly different (just don't get hung up on the "oh but we need 500 different weapons!" mentality that too many of these games have). A stronger sword may also be slower to handle, different bows shoot different distances and do different damage, and these things are balanced so that the very first weapon you get is still useful at the end of the game. This means that nothing is wasted: it is entirely the players choice, instead of being funneled down the designer-tunnel of equipment upgrading we're currently stuck in.

Micromanaging Stats
The Problem: I know what "Attack" means: it's how hard I attack. I know what "Defense" means, it's how much damage I block. How is Strength different than Attack? How is Vitality affecting my defense/hp/etc. Do I really need separate stats for Speed and Agility? WTF is up with all of these useless stats!

For that matter, what does "Attack" mean? If my attack stat is 37, how is that translating into 892 damage per hit?

The Fix: The geeks out there will shudder when I say this, but we only need two stats: Attack and Defense. Maybe Speed if it actually affects the movement speed of your character.
Damage Dealt = Attack minus Enemy Defense plus Special Modifiers
Everything else is ignored by the majority of the gaming public, and some of it actually adds frustration to the game. Like "Hit %"... if I hit attack, I should do some damage. I don't want to see "Miss" appear and find that my turn has been wasted. That goes double if the combat is real-time action.

All of these complex formulas to determine how much damage you do just obfuscate the system to the player. The randomness just makes it more confusing... one time I hit for 850, one time I hit for 819... why? And did that 31 damage difference really add anything to the gameplay, other than confusion?

Playing Minigames
The Problem: Minigames are useful for two things: adding interactivity to a scene that is necessary for story but not for gameplay (a.k.a sticking a square peg in a round hole), or as a diversion to avoid repetition (a.k.a covering up for mediocre gameplay).

The Fix #1: A linear story should not dictate your gameplay. Ever. Ever ever. Ok, well not ever ever... there are people who enjoy that sort of thing, and who am I to say they can't be funneled through a gameplay tunnel if they want. But c'mon people, we're making games! If the story doesn't fit the gameplay, rewrite the story so that it does. Hell, rewrite the story so that it accentuates and improves the gameplay experience that you want. Too many people (*cough Square ahem*) do it the other way around (though to their credit, FFXII goes a long way toward fixing that).

The Fix #2: If your gameplay doesn't hold up well enough over the long haul that you need to add little diversion minigames, spend those developer resources instead adding another layer to your current game. The simplest (and most overdone) way to do this is via optional collectibles, but adding new strategies for combat, sidequests, or anything else that meshes nicely with your current gameplay will add much more than a fishing minigame. I'd go as far as to say that adding detail animations and easter eggs are more important than minigames when looking to freshen the experience.

Watching Cutscenes
The Problem: Watching a cutscene is not interactive. A game full of cutscenes is basically switching media types on you: game, film, game, film, a gamefilm.

The Fix: There are about a million of them, heres a few. To differentiate between these and traditional "cutscenes", I will use the made up term "plotscenes". Please let me know if there is an actual term for a form of storytelling that doesn't interrupt the flow of gameplay.

Passive Plotscenes - This is how Half Life told it's story. While the plotscenes happen, you still have full control of your character and all of your actions.

Reactive Plotscenes - Similar to Passive Plotscenes but the actions you take during these scenes will affect how the scene continues. A classic example is the jetliner scene in Deus Ex. You are being told by Anna Navarre to kill Lebedev, Alex Jacobsen is on your intercom filling you in on what UNATCO wants, and Paul is telling you that Lebedev is your friend. Any action you take, be it killing Lebedev, Navarre, or just walking away will affect the outcome of that plotscene.

Dynamic Plotscenes - The story is built not only from your current action, but your previous actions as well. This is difficult because a designer no longer has full control of the story, but the payoff is a more personal story (though it will likely never be the same quality narrative... I'm ok with that).

----

I don't like simply saying "I don't like this" without offering up an alternative... so here I am, having spent compile times all morning typing what is likely to be ignored by most people because it's too damn long. Oh well, hopefully somebody cares. :)

[Edited by - JBourrie on May 3, 2007 7:23:35 PM]

Nicely formulated post JBourrie. I'd like to add my comments to several points you brought up, so if you don't mind I'm going to dissect your post bit by bit. [grin]

Quote:
Anything that gets in the way of the adventure (buying equipment, micromanaging stats, playing minigames, watching cutscenes) are cutting into the fun factor.

I disagree with you here. Although you may feel that way, others may not. I don't like micromanaging stats either, but I know a lot of players that forcefully demand that ability from their RPGs. I actually enjoy most minigames (especially if they are tied into the story or have some effect on the game world), and although I'm not crazy about FMV cut scenes, I like to watch well-scripted in-game scenes.

Quote:
Buying Equipment

You bring some interesting points up here. I agree that shopping is usually a chore, especially when all you get is a stat bonus. However if you can integrate some strategy into your purchases, shopping becomes a bit more interesting. I think a good example is Final Fantasy VII, where each weapon allowed for a certain number of materia slots that you'd use to learn new skills, or upgrade your weapons' stats.

Quote:
Another good fix would be to make each weapon truly different (just don't get hung up on the "oh but we need 500 different weapons!" mentality that too many of these games have).

I really like this idea of fewer but more distinct weapons. I think it would be a tad difficult to design the game such that your first weapon is still useful at the end of the game though.

Quote:
Micromanaging Stats
WTF is up with all of these useless stats!

I agree that it seems that modern RPGs have a lot of stat bloat. Depending on the game, you could probably get away with 3-4 stats easily. More is not necessarily better.

Quote:
For that matter, what does "Attack" mean? If my attack stat is 37, how is that translating into 892 damage per hit?

So you want the game designers to give you their damage calculation formula? [rolleyes] Yes in essence a simple formula of attack - defense might seem ideal, but what do you do when defense > attack? Do you register 0 damage, 1 damage, or what? If you look at the damage calculations for Final Fantasy VI, you'll see that they are actually quite complex (for better or worse, who knows). Telling such a formula to a player in game would not be helpful, since the player won't be able to remember such a conundrum.

Quote:Like "Hit %"... if I hit attack, I should do some damage. I don't want to see "Miss" appear and find that my turn has been wasted. That goes double if the combat is real-time action.

Just want to say I disagree here. If the outcome of actions in battle are always predictable, then it decreases the strategic thought required by the player. Besides, with an evade rating you can make enemies that have low defense, but high evade and equally enemies with high defense and low evade. It can be used to make battles a little more interesting than just dealing with only attack and defense numbers.

Quote:
All of these complex formulas to determine how much damage you do just obfuscate the system to the player. The randomness just makes it more confusing... one time I hit for 850, one time I hit for 819... why? And did that 31 damage difference really add anything to the gameplay, other than confusion?

I'm getting the impression that you always want to know that you're going to deal x amount of damage to a goblin enemy (for instance) with your current level and equipment. If that's what you want, I respect that, but that is definitely not what I want in my game! I find that so incredibly boring! If I get into a battle and I know I need exactly 3 turns to take an enemy down, what fun is that? Its like playing a poker game when you can see everyone else's cards.

I like random, unpredictable elements and variation in battle. Not only does it make it more interesting, but it makes it more strategic as well. If I have to continually adapt my strategy to win the battle against my enemies, I would call that a damn fine RPG battle. The fact is, sadly most RPG battles are just boring hack-and-slash with the occasional heal spell in between. I would say that yes, that 31 damage difference really added something to the gameplay. It wouldn't add confusion unless that was the one time out of 100 attacks that I didn't deal 850 damage. As long as you're consistently random, the player will be smart enough to recognize that fact and know that they can't depend on the next blow to fell their opponent.

Quote:
Playing Minigames
The Fix #1: A linear story should not dictate your gameplay.

I'm a bit confused about what you intended to convey here. May I ask you to clarify this point?

Quote:
The Fix #2: If your gameplay doesn't hold up well enough over the long haul that you need to add little diversion minigames, spend those developer resources instead adding another layer to your current game.

For the most part I agree with you here. But any static gameplay will get boring after a while, no matter how much fun it initially is. That's the reason why we stop playing games after a while. I like the occasional mini-game as long as it doesn't completely distract from the story.

Quote:
Watching Cutscenes
Passive Plotscenes - This is how Half Life told it's story. While the plotscenes happen, you still have full control of your character and all of your actions.

Yes, but you still can't do much during the scene. You're usually constricted to a limited space with limited actions (ie you can't start blowing everyone up). It is definitely better than a cut-scene where you can literally take your hand away from the input device though. I do think that such a solution would be more difficult in 2D games, since it is more difficult to cunningly restrict the player's field of motion without making it look totally obvious or out of place.

Quote:Original post by Roots
Nicely formulated post JBourrie. I'd like to add my comments to several points you brought up, so if you don't mind I'm going to dissect your post bit by bit. [grin]

Thanks :) I'd like to add my comments to several points you brought up, so if you don't mind I'm going to dissect your dissection of my post bit by bit [grin]

The first thing you should realize is that I'm sick to death of Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy battle systems. Most of my ideas would work 10x better in a real-time system, so keep that in mind as you read this.

Quote:
I disagree with you here. Although you may feel that way, others may not. I don't like micromanaging stats either, but I know a lot of players that forcefully demand that ability from their RPGs.

There are two people that fall into that camp:
- People who only think these games require stats. They enjoy a buttload of stats because games that didn't have them were non-strategic and oversimplified. They don't realize that a game can be complex and varied without resorting to micromanagement because they've never seen it before.
- Hardcore D&D'ish geek-gamers that will probably not enjoy any RPG that I would design :) You can't please everyone, but I think the people who would miss the micromanagement in a well designed RPG are a small minority.

Quote:
You bring some interesting points up here. I agree that shopping is usually a chore, especially when all you get is a stat bonus. However if you can integrate some strategy into your purchases, shopping becomes a bit more interesting. I think a good example is Final Fantasy VII, where each weapon allowed for a certain number of materia slots that you'd use to learn new skills, or upgrade your weapons' stats.

That's pretty much exactly what I was saying... you can shop for badges in Paper Mario also, but buying them isn't just "get the newest/best equipment", it's "what kind of equipment would you like to wear?". I like this. FFVII was minimally strategic in that regard, but at least it was something.

Quote:I really like this idea of fewer but more distinct weapons. I think it would be a tad difficult to design the game such that your first weapon is still useful at the end of the game though.

Yes and no. I'm not convinced that at the end of the game you should do 100x more damage than you did at the beginning, but that's a completely different discussion. Lets assume that you are going the whole "Final Fantasy" power-leveling route, you just base the actual attack power on your characters level. A "more powerful, but slower claymore" will always be stronger and slower than the "weak, fast rapier", but the actual damage done will be relative to the characters strength, and the speed at which it slashes could be relative to the characters speed.

Buying a new weapon wouldn't be "lets get the weapon with more attack power", instead it's "Ok, so this weapon is fast and weak but has an excellent range, it poisons on hit and has a 10% chance of putting the enemy to sleep". This is pretty cool, and could go a long way toward adding a much needed strategy to your equipment selection.

Quote:
So you want the game designers to give you their damage calculation formula? [rolleyes] Yes in essence a simple formula of attack - defense might seem ideal, but what do you do when defense > attack? Do you register 0 damage, 1 damage, or what? If you look at the damage calculations for Final Fantasy VI, you'll see that they are actually quite complex (for better or worse, who knows). Telling such a formula to a player in game would not be helpful, since the player won't be able to remember such a conundrum.

They are quite complex, and handing a formula like that to the player would be like telling the player to do complex math and logic puzzles in order to advance in a dungeon... (KOTOR I'm talking to you! [lol]).

I'm saying the designers shouldn't have to give you their damage calculation formula, because the player should be able to figure it out intuitively.

When defense > attack, either you're fighting something too strong for you, or the designer fucked up the stat balance. A hobbit dagger versus a dragon is going to be like a pinprick and could certainly be considered 0 damage... the player isn't going to think this is cheap, they're going to think "WTF was I thinking, taking on a dragon at level 2?".

Quote:

Quote:Like "Hit %"... if I hit attack, I should do some damage. I don't want to see "Miss" appear and find that my turn has been wasted. That goes double if the combat is real-time action.

Just want to say I disagree here. If the outcome of actions in battle are always predictable, then it decreases the strategic thought required by the player. Besides, with an evade rating you can make enemies that have low defense, but high evade and equally enemies with high defense and low evade. It can be used to make battles a little more interesting than just dealing with only attack and defense numbers.

This was my foot-in-the-water portion of the post, where I throw out an almost blasphemous idea and see what the response is :) In a turn based combat system a Hit % adds a good deal of strategy, and also often adds a bit of frustration. In real-time combat it is completely unnecessary, because if you're attacking and miss, that means you weren't close enough, not facing the enemy properly, or the enemy dodged out of the way.

In a real-time combat system, you can easily double the strategy by changing "miss" into "dodge". The enemy AI, if not in the middle of something, might sense your attack and quickly dodge out of the way. The player could start to pick up on this, and read the enemies actions to second-guess whether or not he'll try to dodge that attack. If so, the player can use a wider-range attack (a sword sweep instead of jab, or something like that) to hit him even when dodging... possibly these different attacks do different amounts of damage.

Quote:
I'm getting the impression that you always want to know that you're going to deal x amount of damage to a goblin enemy (for instance) with your current level and equipment. If that's what you want, I respect that, but that is definitely not what I want in my game! I find that so incredibly boring! If I get into a battle and I know I need exactly 3 turns to take an enemy down, what fun is that? Its like playing a poker game when you can see everyone else's cards.

The formula I posted above was intentionally minimalist, but I have no problem with adding some unpredictability. My problem is when that unpredictability isn't meaningful. That 31 damage in itself really isn't very meaningful. If that unpredictability comes from what state the enemy is in when attacked... hit him from the back and you do 2x damage, if he's idle you do 1x, guarding you only do 0.6x, mid attack you do 1.3x. Also allowing the player to have multiple types of attacks, and each attack having a damage arc (so how well you are squared up against the enemy also matters) will add that variation in a very direct and intuitive way, without being perfectly deterministic.

What I'm really proposing when I say "minimalist" is to remove random number generators, and instead take more data from the players actions to create this number.

Quote:

Quote:
Playing Minigames
The Fix #1: A linear story should not dictate your gameplay.

I'm a bit confused about what you intended to convey here. May I ask you to clarify this point?

The key word there is dictate. I think that the first time a person decides to change the design simply to add a story element that didn't fit in the original design, they have compromised the "gameness" of their product. Of course, some compromise is necessary, but too much and you lose sight of what you were making in the first place. I think minigames are an example of losing sight, where you have strayed so far from your core game that you're not even playing the same game anymore, simply to hack in a story element.

You could liken it to Spielberg inserting 5 minutes of a Seinfeld episode into the middle of Schindlers List, just because he thought the movie needed some comic relief. Worst analogy ever.

Quote:I like the occasional mini-game as long as it doesn't completely distract from the story.

"As long as it doesn't completely distract from the story"... my point is that it does distract from the gameplay. Nothing should distract from anything else, if it does you have a hole in your design. Gameplay/story/art/sound, all of this stuff should be one cohesive whole... minigames break this by separating the gameplay from the rest of this group.

Quote:

Quote:
Watching Cutscenes
Passive Plotscenes - This is how Half Life told it's story. While the plotscenes happen, you still have full control of your character and all of your actions.

Yes, but you still can't do much during the scene. You're usually constricted to a limited space with limited actions (ie you can't start blowing everyone up). It is definitely better than a cut-scene where you can literally take your hand away from the input device though.

Right, and of the three I listed I found it to be the least interesting ;)


Anyway, my idea of an RPG is certainly different than many peoples, and it's because I'm trying as hard as I can to prove how dated the Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy systems are. Apparently Square felt similarly, because the new combat system for FFXII is worlds better than anything they have previously done and the entire second act of the game puts the story on the sidelines and gives you a huge adventure spanning most of the world without being continually interrupted by cutscenes and minigames.

I still enjoy the occasional game of DQ7/8 and FFVI, but I think it's about time we moved on and started embracing more complex interactions in our combat/character development/story. But to do this and remain palatable to the end user, we have to simplify the aspects that are non-intuitive and accentuate the parts that the player can use for strategy. I also believe that better stories will come from less exposition, cut-scene after cut-scene is not the optimal way to tell an interactive story. And minigames... well, they're just one of my peeves :)

[Edited by - JBourrie on May 3, 2007 7:12:37 PM]

I don't know if this is going to help you anything, but personally I never could resist any of the Pokemon games, regardless of what Gameboy version they arrived on. However, they weren't perfect, so here's a few gotchas;

- Too many random fights when walking between cities!
- Too small cities, with too few NPCs. Yes, most of the games were made for the Gameboy platform, but I'm assuming you won't be targeting that.
- Too many games that were more or less the same, or simply rereleases with better graphics and sound etc. This is really only a problem if you're going for more than one game.

Oh, and as for the graphics, please don't make them 3D, and at least don't make them pseudo-realistic! 3D RPGs with pseudo-realistic graphics sucks bigtime! IMHO, either strive for something like World of Warcraft (if you're going to do 3D), or aim for something like the graphics for the Pokemon games for the Gameboy Advance, with a better resolution.